Source: https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ConspiracyTheoryHandbook.pdf Real conspiracies do exist. Volkswagen conspired to cheat emissions tests for their diesel engines. The U.S. National Security Agency secretly spied on civilian internet users. The tobacco industry deceived the public about the harmful health effects of smoking. We know about these conspiracies through internal industry documents, government investigations, or whistleblowers. Conspiracy theories, by contrast, tend to persist for a long time even when there is no decisive evidence for them. Those conspiracy theories are based on a variety of thinking patterns that are known to be unreliable tools for tracking reality. Typically, conspiracy theories are not supported by evidence that withstands scrutiny but this doesn’t stop them from blossoming. For example, the widespread belief that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an “inside job” has persisted for many years after the event.1 Decades after the fact, a vast majority of Americans believe that the government covered up the truth about the JFK assassination.2 Conspiracy theories damage society in a number of ways. For example, exposure to conspiracy theories decreases people’s intentions to engage in politics or to reduce their carbon footprint.3 In order to minimise these harmful effects, The Conspiracy Theory Handbook helps you understand why conspiracy theories are so popular, explains how to identify the traits of conspiratorial thinking, and lists effective debunking strategies. . . . Bob Wilson
Do we find it acceptable to believe that a theory isn't viable, or even the truth simply because it remains unproven for perhaps a long time? The truth does not have an expiration date. Seems to me just because a theory, persists for a long time, doesn't necessarily define it as being untrue. The converse is also true. Just because something is accepted as true, and persists for a long time, doesn't necessarily make it true. For a long time the "truth" was the earth was the center of the universe, and the world was flat. In relationship to the larger, more popular "conspiracy theories" the term that accompanies is "cover up". So the lack of decisive evidence becomes part of the theory itself. So with the cited examples, 9/11 inside job, JFK assassination cover up, lack of decisive evidence is due to active cover up, and that becomes part of the tapestry of the theory itself. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean we are dealing with a falsehood. I don't believe so. The word conspiracy, has a negative connotation. By default if something is defined as a "conspiracy" theory we tend to discount it. But conspiracy or otherwise, what we are dealing with are "theories", and at the heart, theories are ideas. So I believe the opposite. I believe people willing to form ideas, and be exposed to ideas, are usually those MORE willing to engage in politics. I think the statement that people who may embrace or be exposed to conspiracy theories would have "decreased intention" to engage in politics or reduce their carbon footprint, simply false. I may believe Bat Boy and Big Foot have an underground apartment at the White House, but that in NO way affects my willingness to engage in politics, nor reduces my possible intentions to want to reduce my carbon footprint. I work with a co-worker, who's hobby has been to read/investigate absorb JFK assassination theories. He has shared with me a lot of "ideas" I do NOT embrace. But I would say, separately he's actually a person MORE attentive to politics and again "ideas" than the baseline of the population. Whether I, you or anyone else may agree? Is a different discussion or debate. But his exposure to conspiracy theories certainly has not reduced his desire to engage in politics, nor potentially hinder his willingness to reduce his carbon footprint. My perspective is, Conspiracy Theories, are really just theories. And a theory, is an idea or series of ideas. The contention that exposure to ideas, reduces political involvement or ones potential willingness to reduce their carbon footprint I think patently ridiculous. One mans truth is another mans "conspiracy theory". One mans conspiracy theory is another mans fiction or lie. But I do not think the acceptance of an idea, true or false, is a marker for whether one should, would or will be willing to embrace any other set of ideas. .
The problem IS......that conspiracy theories and other "false issues" are most often promoted by two groups of people. Sometimes the promoters belong to both groups. 1) The clinically stupid, who don't have the capability of knowing what it true and what is not. 2) The "brain washers" who promote false truths to further their own personal goals, usually money and power. In a debate between Jesus and Satan, which one do you think is likely to be the first to accuse his opponent of being vile and evil ??
we've heard of them, but we aren't obliged to bring them into the conversation. especially in light of the o/p. if one did feel obliged, one could start a new thread, or one could post a reply in this one that would call in the movers
Well when one of the major tenants in the piece itself is how conspiracy theories decrease peoples intention to engage in POLITICS, followed by the inference that they are also less likely to reduce their carbon footprint (Global Warming Opinon). That pretty much makes it at least partly a Political Discussion because the source material is political.
